Table 3 |
|
|
Advantages and disadvantages of computational and subproteomic approaches to localization analysis. |
|
|
Computational methods |
Proteomics analysis |
|
|
|
|
Advantages |
|
|
|
|
|
Rapid predictions for all proteins deduced to be encoded in a given sequence |
Can be performed under different conditions and provide condition-specific information |
|
Detailed information about specific features of proteins, e.g. signal peptides, TMHs |
Confirms expression of hypothetical proteins |
|
Identification of potential contaminants in subproteome analyses |
Large-scale source of data on SCL for hypothetical proteins that cannot be easily predicted computationally |
|
Identification of hydrophobic integral membrane proteins |
|
|
|
|
|
Disadvantages |
|
|
|
|
|
Does not perform as well (less predictions) when analyzing an organism that is not similar to well studied/model organisms. |
Time-consuming |
|
May miss flagging some multiply-localized proteins |
Low abundance and hydrophobic proteins not readily detected |
|
Poorly predicts particular localizations for which there is little training data, or the proteins are computationally difficult to differentiate between localizations. |
Difficult to accurately identify all proteins found on the gel |
|
Cannot identify condition-specific data on SCL, particularly proteins that change SCL depending on the condition. |
One subcellular fraction at once analyzed |
|
Subfractionation often results in contamination |
|
|
Cannot identify multiply localized proteins |
|
|
|
|
|
Rey et al. BMC Genomics 2005 6:162 doi:10.1186/1471-2164-6-162 |
|